James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

Nooo, you don't have any evidence. I'm not the one trying to prove the point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I've read the Quran (calm down Sam), I know that to be true. There's a sizeable collection about Moses on there. But the hadiths are about Mohammed, and the three points I just made still stand. Even if you took the stories literally - and I think you do - the 'history' can be ignored in favour of a non-discriminating term. The trick is having a reformed society. Probably.

Hehe - so I should believe in Moses? Even if he's being a shit? Are you saying, by contrast, that you take all those tales at face value? :bugeye:

EDIT: I might also add that I didn't specify the Quran, actually.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh you know my position on the hadiths, the only one I follow is the one where the Prophet said

And its my opinion that since they were written between 200 to 800 years after the death of the Prophet, they should be treated as anecdotes.

But going back to the word kufr, like the word American, for instance, the negative connotations are all related to the actions of the kafir against the Muslims and the only two instances where it is permitted to fight them is in self defence and under oppression. Which is generally how the law everywhere in the world shows a consensus where human rights are concerned. But of course, standards are always higher for Muslims as compared to others who volunteer to kill out of boredom or for money, but still I think the fact that in the last 1400 years, Muslims have demonstrated that they can overcome any oppression or religious discrimination without engaging in global wars and occupations shows that this faith in Muslim ethics by others is not unjustified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but much of the accusation against non-believers is to be found there, and corroborates with that of the hadiths; and it is these that do not always paint Mohammed in a good way, though certainly accidentally.

Well, again, the hadiths don't completely support this entirely defensive angle, which relates to that point I made. The issue then is also why these negative connotations should persist into the modern era: surely it's obvious at this point that the 'kafir' (since it seems we must persist with that term) aren't a thread to Islamic society? Religious minorities seem well under the heel throughout dar-al-Islam. Can the word not now be abandoned in favour of something more ecumenical? I sense that Muslim religious authorities trying to discourage the use of this word have this point in mind.

And all the above forgets my points about the unsupported nature of such commentaries, and that the victor writes the history. Do you really feel that such characterizations are accurate? In what way?

Sam, I appreciate your very strong faith. But let's not engage in unfounded preaching. Okay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you give me an example of what is "there" which "corroborates" with the hadiths?

Well its irrelevant what the hadiths support, since they have no force of law and since all the world wars to date have been engaged in by kafirs.

Simple observation. You have the presence of indigenous peoples in their own lands, a syncretic culture based on shared language and history across a fifth of the globe with varied religious opinions or madhabs all coexistent and you have the history of every place where Islam went making the locals the richer and more prosperous rather than bombed back to the stone age or a reservation or a Bagram or a Gaza.

Not at all, I am simply observing the positive aspects of an ideology based on tolerance and forgiveness, graciousness and inclusion, rather than one based on violence and suspicion, murder and torture with an entire people devoted to volunteering to kill for no reason at all.

 

Calling oneself an "atheist" is like calling oneself a "whore" (and heaven knows some people self-identify as "whores").
It may be accurate, sure, and it may be in line with respecting peoples' right to self-identify, but it still contains the original negative meaning or connotation.

Yes.

How can you respect someone who identifies themselves as a "whore".

No.
But definining oneself in terms of opposition to another inherently makes one dependent on that other.
In that sense, it's not really two groups, but one that is split in two camps.


It's the "Democrats" and the "Republicans", not the "Democrats" and the "Non-Democrats" or "Anti-Democrats"; nor is it the "Republicans" and the "Non-Republicans" or "Anti-Republicans".

It is beneath my dignitiy to treat others as badly as they suggest they desire to be treated, by the way they identify themselves.

 

Bingo. Thats my point as well. The entire basis of kufr is that it is against Islam. The only reason there are kafirs is that they oppose Islamic doctrine or the Islamic God. You can no more "self identify" as a kafir in isolation than you can self identify as an atheist in the absence of theists. Without theists there are no atheists, without Islam there is no kufr. However, it is entirely upto the atheists or kafirs to choose a position in opposition to theism or Islam. If they do not engage, they do not exist. And yes, its quite ironic that they demand recognition of an identity set up in opposition to your own. But only in English!

 

I don't think that the way you have been doing it so far is the way to succeed at it.
Like the victim of these forces that reject secularism and liberalism, you are appealing to their compassion and reason - but which you already don't think they have enough of to begin with.
You are presenting arguments that your fellows would accept, but which cannot convince the ones you fight.

This is where liberalism and secularism ultimately corner the liberal/secularist themselves.

There is constant competition in this Universe. And while an egalitarian stance like yours might seem noble, it just isn't realistic.

I'm not in favor of giving in to the dark forces, but I'm trying to figure out a stronger weapon than liberalism.

 

Round and round

Their opinion of "kuffar", for one.

Again, this is offensive, and untrue. I might add that several genocides have been engaged in by Muslims; would this relate to the argument at hand? You're getting off on a tangent here.

Which is totally irrelevant to the argument that the victors write the history. In fact, it supports my point if anything, since religious minorities are relegated to the sidelines, with concomitant repression and oppression; I note this is the core synthesis of Maududi, BTW.

Are we still talking about the hadiths and Mohammed?

Please, Sam: refrain. Your proclivities are well known. I have not characterized Islam as the latter - now or ever, actually - so there is no reason for you to make the corresponding counter-charge. Okay?

***************************

Back on target:

So, as we've seen that my points are essentially correct, does it make any sense to cling to this word? - which I point out, based on your own arguments above, has historical connotations with rebellion and violence. You're making my case for me, here.

 

Excuse me: it does not. Speaking as a theist, you and I have little evidence for our god or gods, while history provides much evidence that an abundance of theism is associated with inhumanitarianism on an impressive scale.

I'm sure you recall the little parable about specks and planks.

 

Sure, this happens all the time.

But why shouldn't it?

What are your convictions about the nature of this Universe according to which having one's identity labeled and position disrespected accordingly is something bad or undesirable?


I mean, for example, I absolutely abhore it when a Christian claims that my values come from Christ.
But why shouldn't they say that?

 

What are you talking about? I don't consider myself a theist.

 

So you consider yourself a whore? :shrug:

 

No, I do not consider myself an atheist either.

I think others have much more problems with labeling me than I do myself.

 

Well, others don't want a pejorative label.

 

Whose opinion? Where? Which corroborates what hadith?

Of course you can, but you'd be hard put to show any place where the advent of Islam led to population replacement due to religious discrimination.

Then its a good thing we are not depending on the victor's version of history, but on scientific data to reach our conclusions. Like Persians are still Persians but Americans are of a replaced population.

I'm still waiting for you to address a single coherent point which stands up to examination.

 

Mohammed's opinion! In the hadiths! One of which was in the text by Mawdudi that you linked to! These short questions do speed things up.

Like the genocide against the Bani Quraysh? Or the millions in Bangladesh? The Armenians? And so on. But is this really our topic? Come on, Sam. Enough with the sideline trolling.

Fascinating - which scientific data? Where?

You haven't made any sensible counter to my points. It's sort of the other way around. Sorry.Do you at least see that it's unfair to persist in a discriminatory word based on a collection of unsubstantiated stories?

Yet, I have a better idea than any of that. Rather than trying ineffectually to refute my points above, you've claimed that the "history" of the treachery or immorality of "kuffaar" is behind this nasty word.

All right. I'd like you to present this history, replete with references. (It isn't sufficient to counter this question with the claim that I must believe it because I'm a Christian, either, as you do above.) We'll concentrate on that for the next post. What say you? If this history is so strong, there must be evidence in abundance.

 

Oh, my

Nope. But if you pretend there's one hard enough, I bet you could convince yourself there was.

I agree utterly: kaffir is a pejorative, in modern and ancient usage. That there's any kind of debate about it is pretty ridiculous, if you must use that word.

I know. It's okay.

Well, it is not I that made it so, or used it so. I think you're confused about that. Let me direct you to a webpage. Let me know if you (ever) read it. To make it easier, I've bolded a salient part.

Yep. I totally confirm it. Crazy, huh? Hell, do a search on it. Search for it twice. Print it off and tape it to your wall. Was I supposed to deny it or something? Maybe tweak my waxed moustachioes while doing so?

Double crazy, eh? A language that permits a non-pejorative, obviating the need to use "kaffir" or the like. The language of the forum. And I ask him to use it! I must have lost my mind.

Bonne chance.

A dark day indeed.

Ah - because I was describing the term, and not using it as a serious insult? It's a possibility. Check it out.

I note you managed to get a search hit before 2010, though. Signal was wondering how anyone could search posts for before then. Signal, if you're watching, apparently it works all right. Maybe it's your browser.

Or even a bunch of Islamic scholars, if we're to accept that Wiki article. Possibly they're also French speaking English born Canadians.

Well, I bet there's a lot of other reasons the complaint floored you, actually. Kudos on your extensive research, however.

You got it. Your interpretive razor cuts as fine as ever.

I salute you.

 

My 2 cents
Chi always refers to everyone by their username unless they don't agree with his theology, then he resorts to calling them kafir. He knows most people here aren't muslim (ie. kafir) but doesn't refer to them as kafir until they actively disagree with his theology.
So it appears to be a slur he reserves for folks who don't agree with him.

 

I agree Sock ,as with other religious fundamentalists ,Chi was fine w/ criticizing and pointing out fallacies in others beliefs but when his own belief system was criticized he became defensive and lashed out. Maybe S.A.M. could teach him how to use persiflage and smokescreens to obfucate discussions regarding Islam.